Hello,

[Added lkml and the people involved in commit 7945f929f1a7
("drivers: provide devm_platform_ioremap_resource()") to Cc:. For the
new readers: This is about patches making use of
devm_platform_ioremap_resource() instead of open coding it. Full context
at https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201112190649.GA908613@ulmo]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:14:29PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 08:06:49PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > I also think that it's overly narrow is scope, so you can't actually
> > "blindly" use this helper and I've seen quite a few cases where this was
> > unknowingly used for cases where it shouldn't have been used and then
> > broke things (because some drivers must not do the request_mem_region()
> > for example).
> 
> You have a link to such an accident?

I got a hint in private here: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1555670144-24220-1-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com

devm_platform_ioremap_resource() is platform_get_resource() +
devm_ioremap_resource() and here it was used to replace
platform_get_resource() + devm_ioremap().

IMHO the unlucky thing in this situation is that devm_ioremap_resource()
and devm_ioremap() are different by more than just how they get the area
to remap. (i.e. devm_ioremap_resource() also does
devm_request_mem_region().)

So the problem is not the added wrapper, but unclear semantics in the
functions it uses. In my eyes devm_ioremap() and
devm_platform_ioremap_resource() should better be named
devm_request_ioremap() and devm_platform_request_ioremap_resource()
respectively. Is it worth to rename these for clearity?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |